On 2007-07-16, Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>> Windows supports more hardware than Linux, especially new hardware.
>
> No, it doesn't. Maybe marginally, if you stick to x86-based stuff.
This seems to be a popular debate in various groups and I don't feel
there is a concise answer. Linux supports *more* hardware than Windows
for sure just by virtue of it being able to run multiple platforms.
However when comparing to Windows it's generally assumed that x86
hardware is being discussed, as it should. Even so, again it depends
on what *more* means. It also depends upon what *Windows* means.
If one were to do a level set and say ok, right now at this minute
using current version of Windows vs current version of Linux,
I would tend to believe Linux supports *more* hardware simply
because it is able to support more legacy devices than Vista
can due to manufacturers abandoning support for such devices.
However the practicality of such devices has to be considered.
IOW, there will always be someone using a 15 year old scanner,
but in the scheme of things what percentage of people still
are using hardware that old?
So in that vein *more*, meaning total number without regards to
practicality, Linux would be first. Another example is full
64 bit support, where Linux I believe was first excluding
the DEC Alpha chip version of NT of course.
Things change however if you look at *more* to mean what
hardware can I purchase right now, or even hardware purchased
in the last say, 2 years or so, which will be completely
supported by Windows or Linux.
Windows usually comes out first on this one because no
manufacturer would sell hardware without Windows support.
Oh yea, Creative managed to do that, but they are an exception
and their products suck albeit popular.
And then you can also say that a certain piece of hardware came
with Windows drivers for the version of Windows that was
current at the time the hardware shipped. So *more* can
mean that as well.
So you see, that little word *more* can really be bent and formed
and cajoled into any meaning that might fit the debate as
seen from one particular side.
I don't really think the question can be fully answered.
What's really important, from my perspective anyhow, is that
Linux *MUST* support right from the start, main stream hardware
in order to survive.Linux people sometimes
laugh at iPods and iPhones and
other multimedia gadgets like these TV boxes and game
controllers and Slingboxs, home alarm systems, automobile
tracking/data logging systems (log how well your car is running
or how your teenager is driving) and so forth but this
stuff is far more important to average Joe than
another development tool for Linux.
When Joe enthusiastically brings home Linux and finds out
that he has trouble making things like the above
work, he will be frustrated and he *will* blame Linux.
The result will be another anti-Linux person who will
at the mere mention of Linux in a discussion over a few
drinks go off on a tirade about how he tried it and
it sucks. I've seen it happen many times, mostly
from ignorance, but dangerous just the same.
Well I've spewed my guts enough.
Back to working through the great vmware tutorial
that Roy posted a link to last week.
P.S. Should I come across as a person who tosses hardware
for the latest and dismisses getting caught with orphan
hardware, that is not the case at all. I have been screwed
several times in the Windows upgrade mill due to orphaned
hardware all because the manufacturer wanted to sell me
something better, which really wasn't better, just more
money.
|
|
